Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner about whether we can truly realize the composer's intent

Tastes change over time. A modern period performance of Bach on period instruments would have been panned by audiences in the early twentieth century, and also possibly panned by audiences in Bach's own time. We just don't know, and frankly, who cares, except the musician trying to make a living?

And I also remember the first time I heard them too - during the Chopin Symposium held at London's Purcell Room as part of his bicentenary commemoration at the South Bank, where Kenneth Hamilton, Professor John Rink, Professor Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger (who edited the New Critical Edition for Peters, where you'll find all the known variants that Chopin is known to have annotated on his pupils' scores - especially of that Op.9/2 Nocturne), Jim Samson and two well-known concert pianists were on the stage to discuss his life and music, and the way it is performed today compared to how it was in Chopin's time, and the pianos he used.

Koczalski's recordings were played, and everyone agreed that his playing was as close to how Chopin himself would probably have played it as we're likely to hear on any recording. It opened my eyes (and ears) to a world of interpretative freedom that I'd never encountered before (disregarding some very odd performances from Vladimir Pachmann and the like ). Even Kenneth Hamilton admitted he couldn't imitate such a free-flowing rubato and rhythm, despite having a go on the Pleyel and Erard grands (of Chopin's time) that was on the stage together with a modern Steinway D.

I'm glad you got to hear these recordings within the context as well with some really top-notch musicologists--they're real eye (or rather, ear) openers. There are some really fabulous recordings of DePachmann, as well which I was fortunate enough (along with stunning recordings by Eugene D'Albert and Busoni) to hear through a CEDAR system, and you could really hear what these guys were all about in terms of phrasing, voicing, and their amazingly creative pedaling. If you haven't already encountered them, you might also enjoy the Chopin renditions of Alexander Michalowski.

I must admit I've not heard of Michalowski - thanks for bringing him to my attention. Certainly, pianists of that era had a much greater diversity of playing styles - especially in Chopin - than today, when it is almost impossible to tell one pianist from another (apart from a few notable exceptions). Even among Polish pianists: Paderewski was as different from Koczalski as Leschetizky was from either of them.

Occasionally, in the privacy of my home, I allow my musical mind to wander freely, and indulge in some fanciful rubati and nuances, and even add the odd filigree decoration to some Chopin and Liszt music I know well. While I wouldn't dare to play like that to an audience who knows the music, I have done so for non-knowledgeable audiences, who seemed to like it....

It's funny how when people play for educated audiences, they try to play like Liszt, whereas when they play for un-educated audiences, they feel free to *be* like Liszt.

I'd much rather live in a world where performers are trying to be like Liszt. (And connect with audiences and be creative artists themselves.)

I believe, fairly strongly, that if Beethoven and Chopin and Liszt were alive today, they'd be absolutely baffled by the reverential and deferential treatment of their music.

To ask the most basic question...does this mean they thought that all the markings other than the notes they put in the score are optional? Or just one suggested interpretation? Or do you mean that occasionally making some relatively small changes is what they'd approve of? Or something else?

Couldn't agree more

My two cents.

I consider the score to be just a guideline. I do not follow it to the letter.
I also believe that it's next to impossible to find a score that conveys the intent of the composer 100%. Musical language on paper is abstract.

And even if the score might be a close rendition of what the composer thought of: What about posthumous works? Chopin and Schubert come to mind. Would they have left their unpublished works the way they were found?

And (slightly OT): Anton Bruckner comes to mind, who didn't write piano music AFAIK, but lots of other music where lots of different versions exist. And when a later version differs from the first one, it's not always possible to tell if the changes were made by Bruckner himself; or if they were made by someone else with Bruckner's acceptance, his tolerance, without his knowledge or even against his will.

So: Since the score is only approximative, and it's uncertain that the composer was ok with it, the "intent of the composer" is only guesswork.
In my opinion the main focus of the pianist should not be to try to guess the composer's intent when playing the work; it should be to try to make good music.

Personally, I could not disagree more with such a statement. And why choose just those three? Why not extrapolate that idea to all of their contemporaries, too?

Would the same statement be made about great writers or painters of the past who were aware of their greatness? Seems absurd. Why would great composers who knew they were great expect their work to be taken any less seriously?

I'm utterly confused as to what you mean by their work being taken "seriously".

Really? I thought it would be very clear. Kreisler's own words were 'reverential and deferential treatment'. That's what I was responding to, and that's exactly what I meant by 'being taken seriously'.

Reverence and deference (aka score worshipping) have a far different connotation than 'being taken seriously' for me.

For me, 'reverence and deference' do not connote 'score worshipping'.

Fair enough. Just hoping you're not one of those score being the end-all be-all type of philosophy.

You made a superfluous association between paintings and writings, and music scores. The former are what they are - fixed (though written literature can be, and often are, translated into other languages or even simplified, e.g. the Bible). But music scores need to be brought to life, and are written to be performed (not just read, or admired): in the Baroque and Classical period, usually by, or under the supervision of, the composer himself, when he may often not bother to write every detail down, and will make changes and improvise on the spot. Famously, Beethoven's score of the piano part of his 3rd concerto consisted of 'Egyptian hieroglyphs', according to his hapless page-turner Ignaz von Seigfried, during the first performance by the composer . (Beethoven was known to add many extra notes to what he actually wrote, when he performed his own music). And everyone knows that Mozart's piano scores (especially the concertos) are only the blueprint for what he himself played during his subscription concerts.

Because classical music needs performers to bring the composers' vision to life, the performers themselves have to bring their own knowledge, intelligence and musicality to interpret what lies beneath the printed scores. During the early Romantic period of Chopin and Liszt, performers were expected to show something of themselves in their playing, even if they weren't the composers themselves (though most performers in those days were also the composers - including Mendelssohn and Brahms). They never treated the scores as set in stone.

It wasn't till the 20th century and Ravel - no great pianist himself - who declared 'performers are slaves'. And Stravinsky too. But their music ( and that of later composers who weren't also performers) are meticulously notated, leaving little of the freedom that many Chopin and Liszt scores often allow.

As wr has already recommended in his post - read Kenneth Hamilton's excellent book, and you'll realize what a straightjacket modern pianists have put themselves into, compared to how pianists used to play during the time the music (of the Romantic era) was composed.

I suppose one could get the scores and frame them; frozen in posterity and thus unsullied by troublesome performers.

LOL. That is a good one, not that others were not.

I wouldn't say so, though it wouldn't be of much consequence if I were given I play only for my own enjoyment.

I've said before that I think the score tells you all you 'need' to know, but that's awfully basic - just notes and expression marks, really. I expect that performers go beyond what they 'need' to know. I don't expect any performance to be limited to, or limited by, the notes and expression marks.

What if there is nothing to know. Haha! IF ONLY!

Maybe we should view limits as encouragements, and let them pull and push us as they please! That would be fun, more ideas for all!

I don't want to speak for or offend any composers who are on this forum, but I would bet that a vast majority of performers/listeners are a lot more anal about fidelity to the score than the composers themselves.